1. How do intrahousehold dynamics change when
assets are transferred to women?
Evidence from BRAC’s “Targeting the Ultra Poor” Program in Bangladesh
GAAP Dissemination Workshop, Washington DC
May 8, 2014
Narayan Das, Rabeya Yasmin, Jinnat Ara, Md. Kamruzzaman
BRAC
Peter Davis
Social Development Research Institute
Julia Behrman, Agnes Quisumbing, Shalini Roy
International Food Policy Research Institute

2.  Many development interventions transfer resources directly
to households to reduce poverty
 Research has shown that women’s control over resources
(assets, in particular) may have important implications
 More bargaining power for women; improvements in children’s
education, health, and nutrition (e.g., Quisumbing 2003)
 These findings have led many development interventions
to target resource transfers to women
 However, “transferring to women” does not guarantee that
women’s overall control over resources will increase
 Important to study how targeted transfers affect dynamics within
the household
Motivation

3.  We study the intrahousehold impacts of a targeted asset transfer in
Bangladesh – BRAC’s CFPR-TUP program
 Program context:
 “Ultra poor” in rural Bangladesh lack assets and skills
 Sociocultural norms of female seclusion favor women staying within
the homestead

 TUP provides transfer of asset that can be maintained at home
(primarily livestock) and training to women in “ultra poor”
households
 Explicit aim is not specifically to increase women’s asset
ownership – but to build asset base of poor households in
aggregate
Motivation

4. Motivation
Beneficiary woman with livestock
Photo credit: BRAC

5.  We focus on “TUP Phase 2” – running from 2007-2011, allocated using a
randomized controlled trial design
 Existing quantitative research (e.g., Bandiera et al 2013) shows large
positive impacts of the program at the household level
 However, little evidence on the intrahousehold impacts of TUP – or of any
other targeted asset transfer program
 We use mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to explore TUP’s impacts
on the targeted women themselves:
 Individual ownership and control over transferred assets (livestock)
 Individual ownership and control over other assets
 Agricultural and non-agricultural productive assets; consumer durables; land
 Women’s mobility and decision-making power
 Women’s perceptions of their own well-being
Motivation

6.  Quantitative analysis:
 Draw on randomized controlled trial design of TUP
 Add new survey round in 2012, focusing on gender-disaggregated
asset ownership, control, mobility, and decision making
 Estimate TUP’s causal impacts by comparing outcomes of 6,066
“treatment” and “control” households, adjusting for attrition
 Qualitative analysis:
 Conduct focus group discussions & key informant interviews in 2011
 Use local concepts of gendered asset ownership & control to inform
design of quantitative survey modules in 2012 follow-up
 Explore “intangible” benefits and perceptions that allow interpreting
quantitative impacts in light of local context

Methodology

7.  Analysis confirms previous findings that CFPR-TUP
significantly improved household-level well-being
 But shows new evidence of mixed effects on targeted
women
Key findings

8. Key findings
(1) Transferred assets: Livestock
 CFPR-TUP significantly increased household ownership of livestock
 Largest increases were in livestock owned by women (including
cattle, typically thought to be “men’s assets”)
 Corresponding increases in women’s control over livestock
 Reflect that high-value livestock transferred to women remained in
their control – one dimension of transformation in gender roles


9. Key findings
Treatment impact on number of [LIVESTOCK]
Owned total in
HH
Owned
solely by
female
Owned in
any part by
female
Owned
solely by
male
Owned
jointly by
male and
female
Cows/buffalo 1.036*** 0.817*** 0.958*** 0.076*** 0.129***
(0.031) (0.031) (0.032) (0.013) (0.014)
Goats/sheep 0.220*** 0.159*** 0.192*** 0.026*** 0.026**
(0.037) (0.033) (0.036) (0.010) (0.011)
Chickens/ducks 0.883*** 0.779*** 0.803*** 0.079*** 0.027
(0.123) (0.116) (0.121) (0.023) (0.029)
Women’s ownership of livestock increased more than men’s

10. Key findings
Women experienced corresponding increases in control rights over livestock
Whether female has the right to […] [LIVESTOCK] owned in the household
Rent out Sell Decide how to spend
money generated from
Decide about
inheriting
Cows/buffalo 0.401*** 0.371*** 0.385*** 0.374***
(0.017) (0.017) (0.018) (0.018)
Goats/sheep 0.083*** 0.078*** 0.070*** 0.066***
(0.011) (0.011) (0.012) (0.012)
Chickens/ducks 0.093*** 0.074*** 0.063*** 0.059***
(0.016) (0.015) (0.016) (0.016)

11. Key findings
(2) Other assets:
 CFPR-TUP significantly increased household ownership of other
assets as well
 Agricultural & non-agricultural productive assets; consumer durables; land
 However, these mostly translated to increased sole ownership by men
 Women did experience increased rights to use some of these assets –
which they perceived as increasing their social capital
 e.g., access to consumer durables (such as suitable clothing): no longer
ashamed of their appearance
 Suggests that when beneficiary households mobilized resources to
acquire new assets (rather than directly transferred), these were
typically owned solely by men

12. Key findings
Men’s ownership of agricultural productive assets generally increased more
than women’s
Treatment impact on number of [AGRICULTURAL ASSET]
Owned total
in HH
Owned
solely by
female
Owned in
any part by
female
Owned
solely by
male
Owned
jointly by
male and
female
Choppers 0.121*** -0.007 0.006 0.114*** 0.018
(0.028) (0.022) (0.027) (0.017) (0.013)
Stored crops (kg) 4.905*** 1.440* 2.590** 2.238*** 0.018
(1.246) (0.832) (1.069) (0.589) (0.475)
Cow sheds 0.258*** 0.075*** 0.121*** 0.138*** 0.036***
(0.023) (0.015) (0.019) (0.012) (0.009)
Ploughs 0.020*** 0.002 0.007** 0.012** 0.001
(0.007) (0.002) (0.003) (0.006) (0.001)
Axes 0.162*** 0.039*** 0.073*** 0.088*** 0.025**
(0.022) (0.011) (0.016) (0.017) (0.010)

13. Key findings
Men’s ownership of non-agricultural productive assets generally increased
more than women’s (with the exception of cash)
Treatment impact on number of [NON-AGRICULTURAL ASSET]
Owned total
in HH
Owned solely
by female
Owned in any part
by female
Owned
solely by
male
Owned jointly
by male and
female
Bicycles 0.026*** -0.002 0.008 0.020*** 0.002
(0.009) (0.002) (0.006) (0.007) (0.001)
Mobile phones 0.076*** -0.005 0.018 0.053*** 0.000
(0.014) (0.005) (0.011) (0.008) (0.003)
Cash (taka) 1,167.991*** 1,048.181*** 1,206.406*** 25.292* 140.542***
(115.712) (59.224) (74.453) (14.931) (42.552)
Rickshaws 0.018*** -0.001 0.001 0.016*** 0.001
(0.006) (0.001) (0.003) (0.005) (0.001)
Fishnets 0.025* -0.017** -0.009 0.033*** 0.003
(0.013) (0.007) (0.009) (0.009) (0.002)

14. Key findings
Men’s ownership of consumer durables generally increased more than
women’s Treatment impact on number of number of [CONSUMER DURABLES]
Owned
total in HH
Owned solely
by female
Owned in any
part by female
Owned solely
by male
Owned jointly by
male and female
Beds 0.180*** -0.025 -0.009 0.204*** 0.025
(0.033) (0.023) (0.036) (0.029) (0.026)
Almirahs 0.104*** 0.011 0.024 0.076*** 0.001
(0.021) (0.015) (0.018) (0.012) (0.008)
Cooking instruments 0.278*** 0.063 -0.079 0.357*** -0.115*
(0.103) (0.098) (0.113) (0.058) (0.063)
Men’s clothing items 1.461*** 0.021 0.805*** 0.636*** -0.028*
(0.196) (0.022) (0.146) (0.091) (0.017)
Women’s clothing items 0.734*** 0.076 0.554** 0.176*** -0.078***
(0.239) (0.126) (0.252) (0.051) (0.024)
Gold jewelry items 0.538* 0.054 0.319 0.035*** -0.003
(0.324) (0.216) (0.296) (0.009) (0.004)

15. Key findings
Men’s ownership of land generally increased more than women’s
Treatment impact on area of [LAND]
Owned total in
HH
Owned
solely by
female
Owned in any
part by female
Owned
solely by
male
Owned jointly
by male and
female
Homestead land 0.539*** 0.060 0.108 0.420*** 0.028*
(0.120) (0.053) (0.072) (0.092) (0.016)
Cultivable land 0.542** 0.134* 0.072 0.519*** -0.001
(0.217) (0.071) (0.140) (0.149) (0.006)
Pond 0.084*** 0.007* 0.031*** 0.053*** 0.002
(0.021) (0.004) (0.012) (0.015) (0.002)

16. Key findings
(3) Women’s workload and mobility:
 CFPR-TUP did not increase the proportion of women working but
did shift work from outside the home to inside the home
 Consistent with transferred assets requiring maintenance at home
 Women reported increased workloads – which combined to reduce
mobility outside the home
 However, women also reported preferring reduced mobility to facing
the stigma of working outside the home

17. Key findings
Women’s work is shifted inside the home
Treatment impact on:
Whether the main female works
0.009
(0.015)
Whether the main female works inside the home
0.167***
(0.024)
Whether the main female works outside the home
-0.080***
(0.017)

18. Key findings
(4) Women’s decision-making power:
 CFPR-TUP decreased women’s voice in a range of decisions
 Women’s decision-making over their own income, purchases for
themselves, and household budgeting was significantly reduced
 Men’s voice in household decisions was significantly increased
 Consistent with women’s reduced mobility, leading to reduced
access to markets

19. Key findings
Women’s control over their own income is decreased
Treatment impact on whether the main female works and
Keeps all of the income earned
-0.077***
(0.015)
Keeps any of the income earned
-0.044**
(0.019)
Keeps none of the income earned
0.053***
(0.014)

20. Key findings
Women’s control over purchases is decreased
Treatment impact on whether the woman herself
controls the money needed to buy…
Food from the market -0.151***
(0.017)
Clothes for herself -0.120***
(0.018)
Medicine for herself -0.153***
(0.017)
Cosmetics for herself -0.068***
(0.019)

21. Key findings
Women’s voice in household saving/spending decisions is decreased,
while husband’s sole voice is increased
Treatment impact on whether [WHO DECIDES] [DECISION]
She solely
decides
She has any voice
in deciding
Her husband solely
decides
She and her
husband jointly
decide
How much to save -0.106*** -0.000 0.002 0.123***
(0.015) (0.008) (0.008) (0.016)
How much to spend on…
Food -0.130*** -0.030** 0.030** 0.098***
(0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.016)
Housing -0.126*** -0.050*** 0.050*** 0.078***
(0.014) (0.015) (0.015) (0.016)
Health care -0.124*** -0.051*** 0.051*** 0.079***
(0.014) (0.015) (0.015) (0.016)

22. Conclusions and implications
Summary of key findings:
 CFPR-TUP increased asset ownership at household level
 In terms of “tangibles,” mixed effects on targeted women:
 Increased women’s ownership and control over transferred
livestock
 However, greater increase in men’s sole ownership over other
forms of new investment in assets
 Reduced women’s mobility outside the home due to transferred
asset requiring maintenance inside the homestead
 Reduced women’s voice in a range of decisions
 Consistent with models relating relative resource control to
intrahousehold bargaining

23. Conclusions and implications
Summary of key findings:
 However, taking into account “intangibles” and context, effects on
targeted women appear more favorable (if still mixed) :
 Women’s social capital increased (access to better clothing, etc)
 Given sociocultural stigma of working outside home, women
preferred working at home even with reduced mobility
 Women themselves framed project impacts more in terms of
intangibles (self-esteem, satisfaction in contributing to household and
children’s well-being, status in the household and community, etc) than
individual rights or material gains

24. Conclusions and implications
Take-aways:
 Asset transfers targeted to women can increase women’s
ownership/control over the transferred asset
 May not necessarily increase women’s overall control over
resources or bargaining position in the household
 If the transferred assets require maintenance at home, targeting
them to women may shift women’s work inside the home
 Desirability of working inside the home may depend on local context
– but may reduce decision making power over use of resources

25. Conclusions and implications
Take-aways:
 Nuance required in assessing whether interventions improve
“women’s empowerment”
 Even if a program’s “household-level” impacts are unambiguously
positive, effects for individuals within the household may be mixed
 Some outcomes valued by individuals may be “intangible,” and some
that seem negative from an external viewpoint may be favorable in the
local context
 However, if increasing women’s asset ownership and decision-making
power are explicit goals, a targeted asset transfer may not be sufficient;
local sociocultural norms may themselves need to be changed